Search

Dementia is a clinical diagnosis without curative treatment. It is uncertain whether ancillary testing is beneficial for patients. This study investigates the association between use of diagnostic tests and time to poor outcome and health care costs. Nationwide register-based cohort study using health care reimbursement data in the Netherlands. All Dutch hospitals, including 13,312 patients diagnosed with dementia in 2018. Diagnostic testing included computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI), neuropsychological examination (NPE), nuclear imaging (PET/SPECT), electroencephalography (EEG), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing. We compared time to poor outcome (institutionalization or death) and costs per month from 2018 to 2021 between those who underwent a specific diagnostic test in previous years to controls, propensity score matched for age, sex, type of hospital, and comorbidity. Time to poor outcome in those who underwent CT/MRI, EEG, or CSF testing was similar to those who did not, but was longer for those who underwent NPE. Time to poor outcome was shorter in patients who underwent PET/SPECT. Patients who underwent CSF testing or PET/SPECT had higher mean total health care costs as compared to controls (CSF €248, 95% CI 64-433; PET/SPECT: €315, 95% CI 179-451). NPE during the diagnostic trajectory was associated with lower total health care cost (–€127, 95% CI –62, –193). NPE was associated with longer time to poor outcome and lower health care costs, potentially due to confounding by indication. Patients who underwent neuroimaging (CT, MRI, SPECT/PET), CSF testing, or EEG for dementia diagnostics did not experience a longer time to poor outcome or lower health care costs. This emphasizes the importance of clinical examination as anchor for the diagnosis of dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The complex care needs of frail older persons living at home is a major challenge for health care systems worldwide. One possible solution is to employ a primary care physician (PCP) with additional geriatric expertise. In the Netherlands, elderly care physicians (ECPs), who traditionally work in nursing homes, are increasingly encouraged to utilize their expertise within primary care. However, little is known about how PCPs and ECPs collaborate. Therefore, we aimed to unravel the nature of the current PCP-ECP collaboration in primary care for frail older persons, and to identify key concepts for success. A qualitative multiple case study with semistructured interviews. A selection of 22 participants from 7 "established collaboration practices" within the primary care setting in the Netherlands, including at least 1 ECP, 1 PCP, and 1 other health care professional for every included established collaboration practice. Transcripts of individual interviews were analyzed using largely double and independent open and axial coding, and formulation of themes and subthemes. Data analysis revealed 4 key concepts for success: (1) clarification of roles and expectations (ie, patient-centered care and embedding in existing care networks), (2) trust, respect, and familiarity as drivers for collaboration (ie, mutual trust through knowing each other and having shared goals); (3) framework for regular communication (ie, structural meetings and a shared vision); and (4) government, payer, and organization support (ie, financial support and emphasis on the collaboration's urgency by organizations and national policy makers). For a successful generalist-specialist collaboration, health care professionals need to invest in building relationships and mutual trust, and incorporating their efforts in the existing care networks to guarantee patient-centeredness. When provided with reimbursement and appreciation, this collaboration is a promising change in general practice to improve the care and outcomes of frail older persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advance care planning (ACP) is seldom initiated with people with dementia (PWD) and mainly focuses on medical end-of-life decisions. We studied the effects of an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) aimed at initiating and optimizing ACP, with a focus on discussing medical and nonmedical preferences of future care. A single-blinded cluster randomized controlled trial. In 2016, 38 Dutch GPs (all from different practices) completed the study. They recruited 140 PWD, aged ≥65 years at any stage and with any type of dementia, from their practice. Intervention group GPs were trained in ACP, including shared decision-making and role-playing exercises. Control group GPs provided usual care. The primary outcome was ACP initiation: the proportion of PWD that had at least 1 ACP conversation documented in their medical file. Key secondary outcomes were the number of medical (ie, resuscitation, hospital admission) and nonmedical (ie, activities, social contacts) preferences discussed. At the 6-month follow-up, subjects' medical records were analyzed using random effect logistics and linear models with correction for GP clustering. 38 GP clusters (19 intervention; 19 control) included 140 PWD (intervention 73; control 67). Four PWD (2.9%) dropped out on the primary and key secondary outcomes. After 6 months, intervention group GPs initiated ACP with 35 PWD (49.3%), and control group GPs initiated ACP with 9 PWD (13.9%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.99; P =.002]. Intervention group GPs discussed 0.8 more medical [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3, 1.3; P =.003] and 1.5 more nonmedical (95% CI 0.8, 2.3; P <.001) preferences per person with dementia than control group GPs. Our educational intervention increased ACP initiation, and the number of nonmedical and medical preferences discussed. This intervention has the potential to better align future care of PWD with their preferences but because of the short follow-up, the GPs' long-term adoption remains unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]